Forest Bill Would Jeopardize Clean Air and Public Health
Senate Environment Committee to Hear Substitute “Forest Harvest” Bill
Tomorrrow the Senate Environment Committee will hear a substitute version of Senator Smith’s controversial “Forest Harvest” bill, S1085 (old version).
There are a bunch of significant and controversial bills on the agenda, including SCR 59, a legislative veto of the “waiver rule” (See excellent NJ Spotlight story), so the forestry bill could fly under the radar.
I’ve written previously about the troubling forest and public lands issues raised by that bill, and some of those issues remain in the substitute version. But, for today, I will leave the forestry aspect to others, who have far more knowledge than I.
Instead, today I will focus on one disturbing aspect of the bill that has gotten no attention.
NJ 2002 PM 2.5 emissions (Source: NJDEP)
The bill would promote “controlled burns” as a forestry management technique, on a statewide basis. The bill would also encourage more burning of firewood.
Thus, the bill would have significant adverse impacts on air quality and public health.
Here is NJ DEP emissions inventory data for particulate matter.
Please read my letter to Chairman Smith, the sponsor, requesting that the controlled burn provisions be eliminated.
Dear Senator Smith:
I wanted to provide emissions data and science to support my concerns on the controlled burn provisions of substitute for S1085, which I understand will be expanded from the Pines to statewide.
As you know, north jersey hardwood forests are ecologically very different from Pines, particularly with respect to the role of fire. The human population, population density (exposure potential) and ambient air quality in north jersey are significantly worse as well.
In addition to air quality and public health concerns, please be advised that increased incremental emissions from prescribed burns (and residential wood burning from harvested wood) would need to be factored into NJ’s SIP.
Thus, the forestry practices of S1085 could have an unintended and significant consequence of forcing costly emissions ratchet down on other commercial and industrial sources to achieve instate PM 2.5 NAAQS.
The Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association (MARAMA) made a presentation to the NJ Clean Air Council on April 11, 2012 that provided emissions inventory data and projections.
MARAMA identified prescribed burns and wood burning stoves as significant sources of PM 2.5 (and other pollutants, including ozone precursor VOC’s).
According to the MARAMA regional air emissions inventory, PM 2.5 emissions in NJ declined from 19,350 tons per year in 2002, to 14,292 tons in 2007, a significant 35% reduction. Thus, new emissions from prescribed burns expanded by the bill would wipe out this progress on clean air and adversely effect public health.
Worse, PM 2.5 emissions were projected to rise (most current model) to 15,926 TPY in 2009, an 11.4% increase.
With additional emissions from forestry managed controlled burns and more combustion from wood burning stoves, compliance with EPA NAAQS air quality standards is made more difficult and costly.
Last, while the technical literature on these issues is vast, here are relevant abstracts:
Simulation of Air Quality Impacts from Prescribed Fires on an Urban Area
Abstract
On February 28, 2007, a severe smoke event caused by prescribed forest fires occurred in Atlanta, GA. Later smoke events in the southeastern metropolitan areas of the United States caused by the Georgia−Florida wild forest fires further magnified the significance of forest fire emissions and the benefits of being able to accurately predict such occurrences. By using preburning information, we utilize an operational forecasting system to simulate the potential air quality impacts from two large February 28th fires. Our “forecast” predicts that the scheduled prescribed fires would have resulted in over 1 million Atlanta residents being potentially exposed to fine particle matter (PM2.5) levels of 35 µg m−3 or higher from 4 p.m. to midnight. The simulated peak 1 h PM2.5 concentration is about 121 µg m−3. Our study suggests that the current air quality forecasting technology can be a useful tool for helping the management of fire activities to protect public health. With postburning information, our “hindcast” predictions improved significantly on timing and location and slightly on peak values. “Hindcast” simulations also indicated that additional isoprenoid emissions from pine species temporarily triggered by the fire could induce rapid ozone and secondary organic aerosol formation during late winter. Results from this study suggest that fire induced biogenic volatile organic compounds emissions missing from current fire emissions estimate should be included in the future.
Abstract
Prescribed burning is a significant source of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) in the southeastern United States. However, limited data exist on the emission characteristics from this source. Various organic and inorganic compounds both in the gas and particle phase were measured in the emissions of prescribed burnings conducted at two pine-dominated forest areas in Georgia. The measurements of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and PM2.5 allowed the determination of emission factors for the flaming and smoldering stages of prescribed burnings. The VOC emission factors from smoldering were distinctly higher than those from flaming except for ethene, ethyne, and organic nitrate compounds. VOC emission factors show that emissions of certain aromatic compounds and terpenes such as α and β-pinenes, which are important precursors for secondary organic aerosol (SOA), are much higher from active prescribed burnings than from fireplace wood and laboratory open burning studies. Levoglucosan is the major particulate organic compound (POC) emitted for all these studies, though its emission relative to total organic carbon (mg/g OC) differs significantly. Furthermore, cholesterol, an important fingerprint for meat cooking, was observed only in our in situ study indicating a significant release from the soil and soil organisms during open burning. Source apportionment of ambient primary fine particulate OC measured at two urban receptor locations 20−25 km downwind yields 74 ±11% during and immediately after the burns using our new in situ profile. In comparison with the previous source profile from laboratory simulations, however, this OC contribution is on average 27 ±5% lower.
Hi there. Please Join our Particle Pollution Forum and bulletin board:
http://burningissues.org/forum/phpBB2/index.php
http://www.northjersey.com/news/environment/Lawmakers_say_Christie_cant_waive_environmental_rules.html
Sorry for length. Dealing with a complicated issue.
I live in a west metro Atlanta county. Last year my heart and lungs were damaged by bizarre amounts of illegal debris burning (many of us think some of it was copper thieves). I was shocked to find out there is virtually no enforcement where I live (because the issue got dropped between law enforcement, fire dept and forestry service) and the Ga EPD told me they work 8-4 M-F, so if the burns are at night (they were) or on weekends there was nothing they could do.
During this time, 300 acres of pine were logged out of a state historical property that backs up to my little subdivision.
So I started looking into burn regulations and air monitoring, forestry service and the timber industry, which led to learning about prescribed burns, biomass/biofuel, big oil in bed with timber/the forestry service/land conservation groups (and of course politicians)(Chevron+Weyerhauser=Catchlight Energy LLC and Eric Cantor is Weyerhauser’s “votes 100% our way” guy). And I learned about the push to “restore” the Longleaf pine forests. Longleafs are very high in terpene (biofuel) and require frequent burning.
I also learned that asthma rates began to climb in proportion to the forest service policy reversal from fire suppression to prescribed burning. But the American Lung Association and the CDC says “no one know why asthma rates are increasing” (CDC “15% increase in last decade”).
http://www.cdc.gov/asthma/impacts_nation/default.htm
Then smoke from a prescribed burn in Alabama drifted into Atlanta on April 4, 2012. It was covered in all the Atl media, but there were no air quality warnings or data. So I began to really dig. I started finding many archived instances when air monitoring was “NA” (data not available). Looking at NOAA satellite fire, smoke, and emissions maps, I found why the monitors were “NA”.
(Looking at the archive data for the 2/28/07 smoke mentioned above, the PM2.5 spikes and then becomes NA until more than 24 hrs later. O3 is also NA the next day.)
For at least 5 years, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources/Environmental Protection Division has been accommodating the forestry service (and others) by shutting down air monitors in response to smoke and the increased ozone that comes after. Data is becoming increasingly “NA” and most days have 2-4 hours of “NA”. (To use as a buffer when computing the 8hr O3 and 24hr PM2.5?)
Georgia has recently sent the EPA requests to be considered in “attainment” for PM2.5 & O3 in the Atlanta area. (I’m nauseous.)
The Georgia Forestry Service (who proudly described what an extraordinarily close relationship they had with other state agencies) bragged about burning a record 1.7 MILLION acres in 2011 in an internal newsletter. That is the tip of the iceberg of what is actually being burned here and in Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina, but especially in Florida (they have the most intact longleaf forests).
This means the airnow site is useless in Georgia. And watching the nationwide monitor maps, I suspect this is true also of S Carolina and several other states.
http://airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=airnow.pointmaps
Sounds like I am paranoid and out of my mind doesn’t it?! I almost wish I was. Instead I feel like I took the red pill and stepped out of the Matrix!
NOAA Satellite emissions archive:
ftp://satepsanone.nesdis.noaa.gov/EPA/GBBEP/PREVIOUS_DAYS/
NOAA Fire & smoke mapping products:
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/ml/land/hms.html
My favorite smoke analysis map (says 6/25/12 to 7/30/12 but there is actually smoke data starting 6/3/11):
http://maps.ngdc.noaa.gov/viewers/firedetects/#
Ga ambient air monitoring data:
http://www.air.dnr.state.ga.us/amp/amp_query.html
This is not the kind of world I want my granddaughters to grow up in:(…..
Correction: For some reason the dnr air monitoring showed February 29th as one value for midnight to 1 am, then NA the rest of the day. I just double checked. There was no Feb 29 in 2007. Data for the day after the smoke event, 3/1/07 is not as irregular as I stated. NAs are late in the day after levels seemed to be dropping.